Search found 556 matches

If you go to court I would not testify in your own defense. Doing so would mean you would have to admit that were driving on the road moments before. If it goes to trial the only way you could possibly win is if the officer testifies that he saw the car in the parking lot and you exiting from it and that he did not see you drive the car on a public ...

If all of the other signs say 4pm make sure you have pictures and locations of them in relation to this sign as well. You would say that you assumed due to the time being obstructed that this sign was like the others. You would also evoke the 60m sign visibility rule arguing that the ENTIRE sign must be visible in cases where additional information ...

Do the Toronto Police dashboard cameras record 24/7 or just when the emergency lights are on?

The suspension will stay there. Good thing you have all that money. Welcome to high risk insurance.

Does anyone know for a minor offence how long it would take to get to trial from the time the ticket was filed?

I think if you are going to do this on your own you should ask for a reduced charge in exchange for a guilty plea on the day of your trial if the officer is in court. Based on what you are saying if you want to try to win outright I would hire a good paralegal.

The stipulation is "in safety". I do not believe the other driver is obligated to facilitate you safely passing him. I can't imagine the other driver would be charged with anything for moving to the right while still remaining in the lane because he would have right of way.

I am thinking the officers are correct. Cars and trucks leave space for bicycles is because they are passing them from the left when traffic stops your supposed to stop too. I know cyclists like to continue past the stopped cars to the light but your not allowed to pass from the right. I hope you feel better soon.

When is your court date and did you request disclosure if so what does it say?

He might have a dash cam that may or may not help your case. Your word against the officers isn't necessarily a guaranteed conviction. The officer is only a witness just like you. If you are confident you stopped fight it, a stop sign conviction is pretty minor. Get disclosure see what they have against you. At trial you are going to get a chance ...

It's illegal to have more than 1 license. Just move to Ontario then transfer your license get your M then move back. Ontario has graduated licensing for motorcycles too.

I agree with Stanton. I read your portfolio and I think that it is mostly irrelevant. What is most relevant is what the officer saw and what statements you made to him, so request disclosure.

It is your right to contest the charge. Police normally get paid overtime to go to court, so I cannot imagine they will take things personally unless you do.

To be honest, I think you said too much at your stop, the place to dispute the charge is at court. It is best to be as non-memorable as possible.

If you are sure you are not guilty of ...

A lot of people in your situation will get the notice of conviction and head to the courthouse and claim they never received their notice of trial. It only works if you did not request disclosure.

If you admit you were going 1 km over the limit you will be convicted of speeding. Regardless file for a trial and request disclosure and go from there.

I'm kindof thinking you should have asked your wife for a drivers abstract before you married her.

Yes as your own recent experience would show it is not a HTA offence it would be more like getting a ticket in another province or state.

It is not a HTA offence since technically you were on federal government land. You broke a federal regulation and not a provincial offence. I do not know if this will be visible to your insurance, criminal driving offences seem to show up, but this isn't criminal. On your record or not, you might have to disclose it if you are asked point blank if ...

You could try to argue a case of mistaken identity as you were turning on a red and he may have lost sight of the car before he could note your plate number.

If you admit to only going 20 over you are still guilty of speeding.

It's their job to get you convicted of something, so they usually will offer you a reduced charge or fine to get you to agree to make their job easy. Most people who show up to court take the deal offered and plead guilty they all end up with convictions on their record albeit with reduced charges. Most people get the same deal.

Be professional ...

Option 3 looks good another delay and perhaps no officer in court. I am wondering because it would be the prosecuter asking for an amendment to the charge if you ask for a delay to prepare you could ask that it be attributed to the prosecuter restarting the 11b clock? Or at least get you the time to get that new car of yours insured.

What were you charged with exactly?

Yes it will be on your record for 3 years if you are convicted. It might effect your insurance rates you would have to ask your agent.

Respectfully, I think you are barking up the wrong pole. You were clocked at 58, so even if you can successfully argue the speed limit of 40 was invalid because of inadequate signage then the prosecutor will argue that the limit is 50 by default and and since you were going over 50 you will be convicted of speeding 8 over the limit (I have recently ...

The default speed limit for toronto is 50 kph in the absence of any signs. Even if you can convince a JP the sign wasn't visible and the limit should be 50, you are still guilty of speeding because you were going 58. The 60m rule will not apply to turning traffic but only traffic approaching the sign from up the road.

At the heart of the matter you are saying a cop saw you miss 2 stop signs at the same intersection and you expect a JP to believe they weren't visible. (They'll tell you traffic lights are also above eye level). The only defense is going to be that you clearly remember that you did make a full and complete stop. Something tells me you are going to ...

If you only want a deal you and the paralegal will get a similar result. A good paralegal will look at disclosure and might see a good defense getting your case dismissed. The deal usually depends on what the officers notes say so a rear end collision becomes following to closely, your might become improper lane change. Personally, I'd spend the ...

There is another witness and that would be you. Careless is serious and therefore harder to prove. You can do something unsafe while not being careless. If you are just looking to make a deal all you have to do is ask and accept if you are offered something you are happy with. Police often overcharge so that the prosecutors has leverage in getting ...

Even if you can convince a JP it was a 60 zone, you are still going to have to prove to you were not speeding, being clocked 1 km over counts as speeding. Asking for a trial and getting disclosure is not going to hurt you. It can only benefit you.

Get a ticket filing service (cheap and saves you a lot of time), get a court date, request disclosure ...

Get professional representation, a lawyer or paralegal.

The suspension is the least of you worries, not being insurable is the real issue.

The rules are different everywhere. The reason you turn from the of the lane you intend to turn is in the very likely event someone is behind you they can pass you. Can you imagine if you were waiting to make a left from the right side of the lane and your rear signal was out and someone decides to pass you because they are not mind readers ...